IP Law Notes and Cases

COURSE SYLLABUS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
NEW ERA UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
WEEK 5
Copyright and Related Rights
A. Legislative History of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (For reference)
1. Act 3134 (Copyright Law)
2. Presidential Decree No. 49 (took effect on 27 December 1972)
3. Presidential Decree No. 1988 (amended PD 49 by inserting Section 56)
4. Intellectual Property Code (took effect on 01 January 1998)
5. Republic Act No. 10372 amending the IP Code (signed into law on 22 March 2013)
B. Law on Copyright (IPC as amended by RA 10372 which took effect on 22 Marc h 2013)
Section 241, Intellectual Property Code “IPC”
Section 239.3, IPC
Section 236, IPC
C. Definition of Copyright
⮚ Section 177, IPC
⮚ Rule 2, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations
⮚ Rules 11-12, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations
⮚ Section 171.3 and 171.9, IPC, as amended
D. Standard for Copyright Protection

⮚ Section 172.1, IPC
⮚ Chin Chun Su
⮚ Ching Kian Chuan v CA, 363 SCRA 142 (2001)
E. When does Copyright vest?

⮚ Christmas cards, songs performed in restaurants
⮚ Santos v McCullough Printing Co., 12 SCRA 321 (1964)
⮚ Filipino Society of Composers v Benjamin Tan, 148 SCRA 461 (1987)
⮚ Sec. 2, PD 49 – a,b,c,d,q (Sec. 2), failure to reg. deposit – no claim for deposit
⮚ Article 5 (2), Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
⮚ Section 172 and 172.2, IPC
⮚ Rule 7, Sections 2-4, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations
⮚ Not originally sporting goods of Manly Sportwear
⮚ Manly Sportwear Manufactujring, Inc. v Dadodette Enterprises, 470 SCRA 384 (2005)
● Mannion v Coors Brewing Company, 377 F. Supp. 2nd 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
● Feist Publications, Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340
● Meshwerks, Inc. v Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008)
Copyright and Related Rights
The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines was signed into law 21 years ago today and became effective on
January 1,1998. But did you know the intellectual property system in the Philippines existed before the country even
declared itself an independent state?
The Spanish Law on Intellectual Property, approved on January 10,1879 and came into force in 1880, was the first
known copyright law in the Philippines. Under Spanish laws, copyright is deemed as a property right and governed by
civil law but with special legislative provisions.
On patents, even if historical records can’t confirm when the Spanish patent law of 1826 was administered and
adopted in the Philippines, some royal decrees pertaining to the colonies passed in that period, saw the question of
patents placed under the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals in the Philippines. Patent applications from the Philippines
had to be sent to Spain for examination and grant.
Following the outbreak of the Philippine revolution in 1896 and the defeat of Spain in the Spanish-American War, the
Treaty of Paris was signed between the European country and the United States to formalise the end of hostilities.
The Treaty of Paris, signed in December of 1898 ended 300 years of Spanish colonial rule in the Philippines, and
dictated the cessation of the Philippines and Guam from Spanish dominion to the American colonial order.
Article 13 of the Treaty of Paris specifically made mention of the existent intellectual property system in the Philippines:
“The rights of property secured by copyrights and patents acquired by Spaniards in the Island of Cuba and in Porto
Rico, the Philippines and other ceded territories, at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, shall
continue to be respected…”
in 1913, the Philippine legislature passed Act No. 2235 making United States’ patent laws applicable in the Philippines.
Republic Act. No 3134, entitled, "An Act to Protect Intellectual Property” was passed in 1924, making it the main
intellectual property law in effect until after Philippine independence from the US in 1945. Republic Act. No. 3134 was
based on the U.S. Copyright Law of 1909.
As a newly independent state, the Philippines enacted two laws strengthening the IP system in: Republic Act 165 and
Republic Act 166, establishing a patent office and allowing for registration and protection of trademarks, trade names,
and service marks respectively, in 1947.
During the Marcos administration, Presidential Decree No. 49, which governed copyright works , was passed and
superseded Republic Act 3134.
As a politically independent state from the mid-1940s onwards, the Philippines also entered into international
conventions that laid out the foundations of the intellectual property system we know today: the Berne Convention for
the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1951), and the Rome Convention of International Convention for the
Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (1964).
The Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), came into force in 1980, of which
the Philippines was already a signatory of since the 1960s.
More significantly, the Philippine Constitution promulgated in 1987 recognised the importance of intellectual property in
Article XIV, Section 13: “The State shall protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientists, inventors, artists, and
other gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations, particularly when beneficial to the people, for such
period as may be provided by law.”
Later on, as the Philippines progressively became a member of the global community, it also adhered to the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in 1995 following its entry into the World Trade
Organisation in the same year.
In keeping with its commitment to these international conventions and the Philippine Constitution, the Philippine
government consolidated the pending intellectual property laws in 1997, and the efforts led to the passing and
enforcement of Republic Act 8293, the Intellectual Property Code in 1998.
A. Legislative History of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (For reference)
1. Act 3134 (Copyright Law)
Act No. 3134, enacted on March 6, 1924, is the Copyright Law of the Philippine Islands. It aimed to protect
intellectual property within the country. Key provisions of this historical legislation:
1. Eligibility for Copyright: Citizens of the Philippine Islands or the United States could secure copyright for
various types of works, including:
○ Books, including composite and cyclopedic works, manuscripts, directories, and gazetteers.
○ Periodicals, including pamphlets.
○ Lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations prepared for oral delivery.
○ Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions.
○ Musical compositions (with or without words).
○ Maps, plans, sketches, charts, and drawings.
○ Works of art, models, and designs.
○ Photographs, engravings, lithographs, lantern slides, and cinematographic pictures.
○ Prints and pictorial illustrations.
○ Other articles and writings.
2. Exclusive Rights: The copyright holder had exclusive rights, including:
○ Reproduction, publication, distribution, and sale of the copyrighted work.
○ Translation, adaptation, and arrangement of the work.
○ Exhibition, performance, and representation of the work for profit or other purposes.
○ Other lawful uses consistent with local laws.
3. Quoting and Reproduction: Lines, passages, or paragraphs from copyrighted works could be quoted or
reproduced for comment, dissertation, criticism, or news items. Musical works could also be partially
reproduced.
4. Registration and Deposit: Copyright existed upon registration and deposit of the work with the Philippine
Library and Museum, along with publication of the copyright claim.
This law played a crucial role in shaping intellectual property protection in the Philippines, drawing inspiration
from the U.S. Copyright Law of 19093. Although it has been replaced by subsequent legislation, Act No. 3134
remains a significant milestone in the country’s legal history.
2. Presidential Decree No. 49 (took effect on 27 December 1972)

Presidential Decree No. 49, issued on November 14, 1972, is a significant piece of legislation in the Philippines. It
addresses the protection of intellectual property and aims to encourage arts, letters, scientific research, and
invention while safeguarding the public’s right to cultural information.
Key provisions of Presidential Decree No. 49:
1. Title and Scope:
○ The decree is known as the “Decree on Intellectual Property.”
○ It grants rights that subsist from the moment of creation for various classes of works, including:
■ Books, manuscripts, directories, and gazetteers.
■ Periodicals, pamphlets, and newspapers.
■ Lectures, sermons, and dissertations prepared for oral delivery.

■ Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions, choreographic works, and entertainments.
■ Musical compositions, with or without words.
■ Works of art, including drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, and more.
■ Photographic works, cinematographic works, and computer programs.
■ Other literary, scholarly, scientific, and artistic works.
2. Rights and Protection:
○ The rights granted by this decree include:
■ Reproduction, publication, distribution, and sale of the copyrighted work.
■ Translation, adaptation, and arrangement of the work.
■ Exhibition, performance, and representation of the work.
■ Protection for dramatization, translations, adaptations, abridgements, and other
alterations of literary, musical, or artistic works.
■ Collection of intellectual creations based on the selection and arrangement of content.
3. Translation Rights:
○ After five years from the first publication of a work, if no translation has been published in the
national or local language, a citizen may obtain a non-exclusive license to translate and publish
the work in the language where it hasn’t been previously published.
○ This provision encourages the dissemination of knowledge and cultural exchange.
Presidential Decree No. 49 played a crucial role in shaping intellectual property protection in the Philippines,
emphasizing the importance of creativity and innovation in a rapidly advancing world
3. Presidential Decree No. 1988 (amended PD 49 by inserting Section 56)

Presidential Decree No. 1988, enacted on October 5, 1985, amends certain sections of Presidential Decree No.
49.
1. Purpose and Context:

○ P.D. No. 49, also known as the “Decree on Intellectual Property,” was issued on November 14,
1972. It aimed to provide comprehensive protection for intellectual property in the Philippines,
encouraging creativity, invention, and cultural exchange.
○ P.D. No. 1988 comes into play as an amendment to enhance the existing legal framework.
2. Amendment to Section 56:
○ Section 56 of P.D. No. 49 is the focal point of this amendment.
○ The revised section addresses critical aspects related to intellectual property rights, enforcement,
and protection.
3. Deposit and Certification:
○ P.D. No. 1988 introduces a provision related to deposit and certification.
○ Upon deposit of a work with the Philippine Library and Museum, the producer receives a
certificate under the library’s seal. This certificate serves as prima facie evidence of the stated
facts regarding the deposit.
In summary, Presidential Decree No. 1988 refines the intellectual property landscape by amending specific
sections of its predecessor, P.D. No. 49. These legal measures continue to shape the protection and promotion of
creativity and innovation in the Philippines.
4. Intellectual Property Code (took effect on 01 January 1998)

The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, officially known as Republic Act 8293, was signed into law by
President Fidel V. Ramos on June 6, 1997, and it took effect on January 1, 1998. This landmark legislation
significantly shaped the country’s intellectual property landscape. Key features:
1. Background and Authorship:

○ Senator Raul S. Roco authored the Intellectual Property Code.

○ It replaced the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks, and Technology Transfer (BPTTT), streamlining
and modernizing intellectual property protection in the Philippines.
2. Scope and Impact:
○ The IP Code covers various classes of works, including:
■ Books, manuscripts, directories, and gazetteers.
■ Periodicals, pamphlets, and newspapers.
■ Lectures, sermons, and dissertations prepared for oral delivery.
■ Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions, choreographic works, and entertainments.
■ Musical compositions, with or without words.
■ Works of art, including drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, and more.
■ Photographic works, cinematographic works, and computer programs.
■ Other literary, scholarly, scientific, and artistic works.
○ With the IP Code in place, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines was established,
replacing the BPTTT..
3. Historical Context:
○ The Philippines’ intellectual property system has a rich history:
■ Spanish Law on Intellectual Property (1880): The first known copyright law in the
Philippines.
■ U.S. Influence: After the Spanish-American War, the Treaty of Paris recognized existing
intellectual property rights in the Philippines.
■ Act No. 3134 (1924): Modeled after the U.S. Copyright Law of 1909.
■ Post-Independence Laws (1947): Republic Acts 165 and 166 strengthened the IP system.
■ Presidential Decree No. 49 (Marcos administration): Governed copyright works.
■ International Conventions: The Berne Convention (1951) and the Rome Convention
(1964) laid the foundations for the current IP system.
The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines continues to play a vital role in promoting creativity, innovation,
and cultural exchange within the country and beyond.
5. Republic Act No. 10372 amending the IP Code (signed into law on 22 March 2013)
Republic Act No. 10372, enacted on March 6, 2013, is a pivotal amendment to the Intellectual Property Code of
the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293). Significant changes brought about by this legislation:
1. Establishment of the Bureau of Copyright and Other Related Rights:

○ Within the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), the Bureau of Copyright and
Other Related Rights was established.
○ This bureau plays a crucial role in handling copyright matters, ensuring proper protection for
creators and their works.
2. Specific Enforcement Functions:
○ The Director General of IPOPHL and their deputies were granted specific enforcement functions:
■ Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions rendered by various directors (e.g., Director
of Legal Affairs, Director of Patents, Director of Trademarks, Director of Copyright and
Other Related Rights).
■ Undertaking enforcement functions with support from agencies like the Philippine
National Police, National Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Customs, Optical Media
Board, and local government units.
■ Conducting visits to establishments violating intellectual property rights based on reports
or complaints.
3. Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information:
○ The amendment introduced provisions for implementing technological protection measures and
ensuring proper rights management information for copyrighted works disseminated through the
Internet.
4. Copyright Limitations and Exceptions:
○ The law clarified copyright limitations and exceptions, particularly for the benefit of
visually-impaired persons.
○ It also addressed fair use exceptions to copyright, balancing protection with public access to
knowledge.
5. Clarifications on Copyright Infringements:
○ Republic Act No. 10372 provided clarity regarding copyright infringements, reinforcing the
importance of respecting intellectual property rights.
This amendment reflects the Philippines’ commitment to fostering creativity, innovation, and cultural exchange
while ensuring robust protection for intellectual property.
B. Law on Copyright (IPC as amended by RA 10372 which took effect on 22 Marc h 2013)
Section 241, Intellectual Property Code “IPC”
SEC. 241. Separability – If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any circumstances is
held invalid, the remainder of the Act shall not be affected thereby.
This means that even if a specific part of the Act is found to be invalid or inapplicable, the rest of the Act remains
📜🔍
intact and enforceable. It ensures that the overall purpose and intent of the legislation can still be upheld despite
any isolated issues with individual provisions.
Section 239.3, IPC

Section 239.3 of the Intellectual Property Code (IPC) states:
“The provisions of this Act shall apply to works in which copyright protection obtained prior to the effectivity of this
Act is subsisting: Provided, That the application of this Act shall not result in the diminution of such protection.”
This provision ensures that existing copyright protections are not weakened by the implementation of the IPC. It
aims to strike a balance between safeguarding intellectual property rights and maintaining the rights acquired
under previous legal frameworks.
Section 236, IPC

Section 236. Preservation of Existing Rights. -
“Nothing herein shall adversely affect the rights on the enforcement of rights in patents, utility models, industrial
designs, marks and works, acquired in good faith prior to the effective date of this Act.”
This provision underscores the importance of safeguarding existing intellectual property rights. It ensures that
individuals who obtained such rights in good faith before the enactment of the Intellectual Property Code
continue to enjoy their protections without diminution.
C. Definition of Copyright
Copyright refers to the legal protection granted to creators and authors of original works. It grants them exclusive
rights to control how their creations are used, distributed, and reproduced. These rights apply to various forms of
intellectual property, including literary works, music, art, software, and more.
Key points about copyright:
1. Ownership: Copyright gives creators ownership over their work. When someone creates an original piece,
they automatically hold the copyright to it.
2. Duration: Copyright protection typically lasts for the creator’s lifetime plus a certain number of years (e.g.,
70 years after the creator’s death). After this period, the work enters the public domain.
3. Exclusive Rights: Copyright holders have exclusive rights, including:
○ Reproduction: The right to make copies of the work.
○ Distribution: The right to distribute the work to the public.
○ Derivative Works: The right to create adaptations or derivative works based on the original.
○ Public Performance: The right to perform the work publicly (e.g., in concerts, theaters).
○ Display: The right to display the work (e.g., in galleries, exhibitions).
4. Fair Use: Some uses of copyrighted material are allowed without permission under the doctrine of fair
use. Fair use considers factors like purpose, nature, amount, and effect on the market.
5. Registration: While copyright protection exists automatically, registering the work with a copyright office
provides additional legal benefits and evidence of ownership.
📚🎨🎵
Remember that copyright laws vary by country, and it’s essential to respect creators’ rights while enjoying and
sharing creative works.
⮚ Section 177, IPC

Section 177 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines outlines the economic rights of authors. These
rights grant exclusive control over various aspects related to their creative works.
1. Reproduction: Authors have the sole right to reproduce their work or a substantial portion of it.
2. Translation: They can authorize or prevent translations of their work.
3. Distribution: Authors control the distribution of their work.
4. Rental Rights: They can decide whether their work can be rented out.
5. Public Display: Authors have the right to display their work publicly.
6. Public Performance: They can authorize or prohibit public performances of their work.
7. Communication to the Public: Authors control how their work is communicated to the public.
These rights are crucial for protecting creators’ intellectual property and ensuring fair compensation for their
contributions
⮚ Rule 2, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations

This rule provides definitions for key terms related to copyright. Here are some important definitions:
1. Author: The natural person who has created a work.

2. Collective Work: A work created by two or more natural persons under the direction of another, with the
understanding that it will be disclosed under the latter’s name.
3. Communication to the Public: Making a work available to the public via wire or wireless means, allowing
access from individually chosen places and times.
4. Computer Program: A set of instructions capable of causing a machine to perform a specific function
when incorporated in a machine-readable medium.
5. Copyright: A statutory right granted to authors or originators of literary, scholarly, scientific, or artistic
works, including computer programs. It allows them to control how the work is used and obtain economic
benefits from it.
6. Copyright Office: Refers to the Copyright Division of the National Library.
7. Copyright Symbol: Represented by ©.
8. Date of Publication: The earliest date when a copy of the first authorized edition of the work was made
available to the public.
9. Decompilation: Reproducing code and translating forms of a computer program for inter-operability.
10. Exhibition of an Audiovisual Work: Any form of exploitation, including distribution, public performance,
and communication to the public.
11. Fee: The amount prescribed for services related to copyright registration and deposit.
12. Performance Symbol: Represented by p.

13. Public Lending: Transfer of possession of the original or a copy of a work for non-profit purposes by
institutions like public libraries.
14. Public Performance: Recitation, playing, dancing, acting, or any performance of the work, directly or
through devices.
15. Published Work: Work made available to the public via wire or wireless means, satisfying reasonable
requirements.
16. Publisher: Produces and makes available published works.
17. Rental: Transfer of possession of a work for a limited period for profit-making purposes.
18. Reproduction: Making one or more copies of a work, including multimedia.
Remember, these definitions play a crucial role in safeguarding creators’ rights and ensuring fair use of
intellectual property in the Philippines.
⮚ Rules 11-12, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations

Rule 11: Communication to the Public of Copyrighted Work:
○ The term “communication to the public” encompasses various forms of making a work available
to the public. This includes:
■ Broadcasting
■ Rebroadcasting
■ Retransmission by cable
■ Broadcast and retransmission by satellite
■ Point-to-point transmission (such as video on demand)
■ Providing access to an electronic retrieval system (e.g., computer databases, servers) .
○ In essence, any act that allows the public to access a copyrighted work falls under this definition.
Rule 12: First Public Distribution of Work:

○ The exclusive right of first distribution of a work involves all actions related to distribution.
Specifically, this includes:
■ Importing the original work and each copy of it into the jurisdiction of the Republic of the
Philippines.
○ Essentially, this right pertains to the initial dissemination of a work to the public.
Remember, these rules play a crucial role in safeguarding creators’ rights and ensuring fair use of intellectual
property in the Philippines.
⮚ Section 171.3 and 171.9, IPC, as amended

Section 171.3 (“Communication to the Public”):
o The term “communication to the public” refers to making a work available to the public
through wire or wireless means.
o Key points:
▪ The work is accessible to the public.
▪ Members of the public can access the work from a place and time individually chosen
by them.
▪ Examples include broadcasting, streaming, and online platforms where users can
choose when and where to access the content.
Section 171.9 (“Reproduction”):
○ “Reproduction” involves creating one or more copies of a work or a sound recording.
○ Important details:
■ It covers any manner or form of copying.
■ For sound recordings, this includes duplicating the recording.
■ Essentially, it pertains to the act of replication.
These provisions play a crucial role in defining the rights and responsibilities related to creative works and their
dissemination.
D. Standard for Copyright Protection
A. Originality and Creativity:
a. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original and exhibit a certain level of creativity.
b. Originality means that the work is not a mere copy or imitation of existing material.
c. Creativity refers to the expression of ideas in a unique and imaginative way.
B. Fixation:
a. Copyright protection applies to works that are fixed in a tangible medium.
b. Examples of fixed works include:
i. Written texts (books, articles, poems)
ii. Musical compositions
iii. Paintings and sculptures
iv. Computer programs (source code)
v. Audio and video recordings
C. Minimum Threshold:
a. There is no strict quantitative threshold for creativity, but the work must possess a minimal level
of originality.
b. Simple facts, ideas, and common phrases are generally not eligible for copyright protection.
D. Rights Granted:
a. Copyright grants the creator exclusive rights, including:
i. Reproduction: Making copies of the work.
ii. Distribution: Disseminating copies to the public.
iii. Public Performance: Presenting the work to an audience.
iv. Derivative Works: Creating adaptations or modifications.
E. Duration:
a. Copyright protection lasts for a specific duration (varies by country).
b. After the copyright term expires, the work enters the public domain, becoming freely accessible to
everyone.
🌟🖋️
Remember, copyright law aims to balance the interests of creators and the public, fostering a vibrant cultural
landscape.

The realm of literary and artistic works encompasses a rich tapestry of human creativity. Diverse forms of
expression that fall under this umbrella:
1. Books, pamphlets, articles, and other writings: From epic novels to succinct essays, the written word
weaves stories, shares knowledge, and sparks imagination.
2. Periodicals and newspapers: These publications keep us informed about current events, culture, and
trends.
3. Lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations: Whether delivered orally or transcribed, these spoken
works contribute to intellectual discourse.
4. Letters: Personal correspondence, historical missives, and epistolary exchanges all fall within this
category.
5. Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions: The stage comes alive with plays, operas, and musicals,
where emotions and narratives unfold.
6. Musical compositions: Melodies, harmonies, and lyrics combine to create timeless tunes that resonate
with our hearts.
7. Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography, and other visual arts: These
pieces evoke beauty, provoke thought, and capture moments in time.
8. Models or designs for works of art: The blueprints and prototypes that precede the final masterpiece.
9. Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture: Think of elegant patterns on
ceramics, textiles, or furniture.
10. Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts, and three-dimensional works: These visual aids enhance our
understanding of geography, architecture, and scientific concepts.
11. Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character: Diagrams, schematics, and technical
illustrations serve as visual guides.
12. Photographic works: Capturing reality through the lens, from candid snapshots to meticulously
composed images.
13. Audiovisual works and cinematographic works: Movies, documentaries, and multimedia presentations
engage our senses.
14. Pictorial illustrations and advertisements: Visual storytelling in advertising, posters, and promotional
materials.
15. Computer programs: The code that powers our digital world, enabling software applications to function.
16. Other literary, scholarly, scientific, and artistic works: A catch-all category for the myriad expressions of
human creativity.
🎨📚🎭
These works, born from the depths of imagination and skill, enrich our lives, provoke thought, and connect us
across time and space.

172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as
well as of their content, quality and purpose. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 49a)
The protection of works extends from their very inception, transcending the intricacies of their medium,
form, content, quality, and purpose. Whether a poetic verse, a symphony’s notes, or a meticulously crafted
sculpture, their existence is safeguarded by the sheer act of creation. This universal shield envelops the artistic
🎨📝🎭
and literary landscape, ensuring that each stroke of the brush, every keystroke of code, and each whispered line
of dialogue finds its sanctuary in the realm of intellectual property.
⮚ Chin Chun Su
⮚ Ching Kian Chuan v CA, 363 SCRA 142 (2001)
F. When does Copyright vest?

⮚ Christmas cards, songs performed in restaurants
Copyright unfurls its protective mantle upon the creative works of humanity, embracing them with legal
guardianship.
1. Christmas Cards:
○ These festive missives, adorned with yuletide cheer, find their copyright vested at the moment of
their creation. Whether a hand-painted scene of snow-kissed landscapes or a digital collage of
merriment, the artist’s intent breathes life into each card.
🎄💌
○ Remember, the mere act of crafting these cards—whether by quill or pixel—bestows upon them
the mantle of copyright.
2. Songs Performed in Restaurants:
○ The dulcet strains of melodies wafting through cozy bistros and bustling eateries are no
exception. When a musician strums a guitar or a vocalist serenades diners, their musical
offerings become protected.
🎶🍽️
○ The performance itself, akin to a fleeting dance of notes, is a manifestation of creativity. Thus, the
copyright veil envelopes these harmonious interludes.
🌟✍️🎨
Remember, dear creator, your artistic endeavors—whether grand or intimate—deserve acknowledgment and
safeguarding. So, raise your pen, pluck those strings, and let your imagination unfurl its wings!
⮚ Santos v McCullough Printing Co., 12 SCRA 321 (1964)

⮚ Filipino Society of Composers v Benjamin Tan, 148 SCRA 461 (1987)
⮚ Sec. 2, PD 49 – a,b,c,d,q (Sec. 2), failure to reg. deposit – no claim for deposit
Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 49 outlines crucial aspects of copyright protection. Let’s decipher its
provisions:
● Sec. 2 (a): Literary and Artistic Works—the vibrant tapestry of human creativity—find their
sanctuary under this section. From novels to symphonies, each stroke of genius is
safeguarded.
● Sec. 2 (b): The moment of creation is the magical threshold. Irrespective of form or
content, works are cocooned in copyright upon their birth.
● Sec. 2 ©: Quality and purpose matter not. Whether a sonnet or a software code, their
existence merits protection.
● Sec. 2 (d): The veil of copyright shrouds these creations, transcending mere expression.
● Sec. 2 (q): Failure to register deposit—a missed step. Yet, even without it, the cloak of
copyright remains intact.
⮚ Article 5 (2), Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works:
(2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment
and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work.
In essence, this provision emphasizes that creators’ rights—whether authors, musicians, painters, or
poets—are not bound by bureaucratic formalities. Their creative works stand protected from the moment of their
🎨📝🌟
creation, regardless of whether they have sought official registration or copyright in their home country. It’s a
celebration of artistic freedom and recognition of the intrinsic value of creativity.
⮚ Section 172 and 172.2, IPC

● Books, pamphlets, articles, and other writings: From epic novels to succinct essays, the
written word weaves stories, shares knowledge, and sparks imagination.
● Periodicals and newspapers: These publications keep us informed about current events,
culture, and trends.
● Lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations: Whether delivered orally or transcribed,
these spoken works contribute to intellectual discourse.
● Letters: Personal correspondence, historical missives, and epistolary exchanges all fall
within this category.
● Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions: The stage comes alive with plays, operas,
and musicals, where emotions and narratives unfold.
● Musical compositions: Melodies, harmonies, and lyrics combine to create timeless tunes
that resonate with our hearts.
● Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography, and other visual
arts: These pieces evoke beauty, provoke thought, and capture moments in time.
● Models or designs for works of art: The blueprints and prototypes that precede the final
masterpiece.
● Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture: Think of elegant
patterns on ceramics, textiles, or furniture.
● Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts, and three-dimensional works: These visual
aids enhance our understanding of geography, architecture, and scientific concepts.
● Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character: Diagrams, schematics,

and technical illustrations serve as visual guides.
● Photographic works: Capturing reality through the lens, from candid snapshots to
meticulously composed images.
● Audiovisual works and cinematographic works: Movies, documentaries, and multimedia
presentations engage our senses.
● Pictorial illustrations and advertisements: Visual storytelling in advertising, posters, and
promotional materials.
● Computer programs: The code that powers our digital world, enabling software
applications to function.
● Other literary, scholarly, scientific, and artistic works: A catch-all category for the myriad
expressions of human creativity.
🎨📚🎭
These works, born from the depths of imagination and skill, enrich our lives, provoke thought, and connect us
across time and space.
72.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as
well as of their content, quality and purpose. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 49a)
The protection of works extends from their very inception, transcending the intricacies of their medium,
form, content, quality, and purpose. Whether a poetic verse, a symphony’s notes, or a meticulously crafted
sculpture, their existence is safeguarded by the sheer act of creation. This universal shield envelops the artistic
🎨📝🎭
and literary landscape, ensuring that each stroke of the brush, every keystroke of code, and each whispered line
of dialogue finds its sanctuary in the realm of intellectual property.
⮚ Rule 7, Sections 2-4, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations

SECTION 2: The registration and deposit of a work serve as a record of the date of registration and deposit.
However, it does not conclusively determine copyright ownership, the duration of copyrights, or the rights of the
copyright owner, including neighboring rights.
SECTION 4: Upon receiving a certificate of deposit, the copyright owner is no longer required to make additional
deposits of the work with the National Library (TNL) or the Supreme Court Library (SCL) under other laws.
📜🔐
These provisions underscore the importance of proper registration and deposit while acknowledging that they do
not settle all aspects of copyright ownership and rights.
⮚ Not originally sporting goods of Manly Sportwear
⮚ Manly Sportwear Manufactujring, Inc. v Dadodette Enterprises, 470 SCRA 384 (2005)
⮚ Mannion v Coors Brewing Company, 377 F. Supp. 2nd 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
⮚ Feist Publications, Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340
⮚ Meshwerks, Inc. v Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008)
Santos vs. McCullough Printing Co.

Case
G.R. No. L-19439
Ponente
PAREDES, J
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1964
A Filipino artist loses a lawsuit against a printing company for unauthorized use of his Christmas
card design due to lack of copyright protection and a general publication of the design.
Facts:
● Mauro Malang Santos, a Filipino artist, filed a lawsuit against McCullough Printing Company for the
unauthorized use of his Christmas card design.
● Santos claimed that he had designed the artwork for former Ambassador Felino Neri's personal Christmas
card greetings in 1959.
● The following year, McCullough Printing Company displayed the same design in its album of Christmas
card samples and offered it for sale without Santos' knowledge or consent.
● Santos sought damages amounting to P16,000.00 for moral damages and an additional P3,000.00 as
attorney's fees.
Issue:
● Whether Santos is entitled to protection for his design, even though he did not copyright it.
● Whether the publication of the design was limited or general, which would determine the rights of the
author.
Ruling:
● The court ruled in favor of McCullough Printing Company and dismissed Santos' complaint.
● The court held that Santos was not entitled to protection for his design under the provisions of the Civil
Code, as he had not copyrighted it.
● The court also found that the publication of the design was a general publication, as there was no clear
indication of a limited publication.
● Therefore, Santos lost control of his design once it was published, and subsequent publication by others
was not considered an infringement of his rights.
Ratio:
● The court based its decision on the principle that intellectual creations should be copyrighted within the
periods provided by law. Failure to do so renders the creation public property.
● The court emphasized that for there to be a limited publication, it must be indicated on the face of the
design. In this case, since there was no clear indication of a limited publication, the design became public
property.
● The court further explained that the exclusive right of the author to control subsequent publication is
confined to the first publication, unless the work is protected by copyright.
● Since Santos did not copyright his design, McCullough Printing Company's use of the design was not
considered an infringement.
● Therefore, the court concluded that Santos' complaint did not state a cause of action against the
defendant.
Case Background and Parties Involved

● The case involves a Filipino artist, Mauro Malang Santos, and a printing company, McCullough
Printing Company.
● Santos sues the printing company for the unauthorized use of his Christmas card design.
● He claims that the company displayed and offered for sale his design without his knowledge or
consent.
● Santos seeks damages for moral damages and attorney's fees.
Court's Ruling in Favor of the Printing Company
● The court rules in favor of the printing company, stating that the design was not copyrighted and
therefore became public property.
● Intellectual creations should be copyrighted within the periods provided by law, and failure to do so
renders the creation public property.
● Since Santos did not copyright his design, it became public property when it was published in
Ambassador Neri's Christmas cards.
Importance of Copyright Protection
● The court emphasizes the importance of copyright protection for intellectual creations.
● Intellectual creations should be copyrighted within the periods provided by law to maintain control
over their use.
● Failure to copyright a creation renders it public property, and the author loses the exclusive right to
control subsequent publication by others.
Limited Publication and Clear Indication
● For there to be a limited publication or prohibition on the use of a design, such fact must appear on
the face of the design.
● In this case, there was no clear indication of a limited publication, so the necessary implication was
that there had been a general publication.
● Once a work is published, the author loses the exclusive right to control subsequent publication by
others, unless the work is protected by copyright law.
Conclusion and Affirmation of Lower Court's Decision
● Based on the principles discussed, the court concludes that Santos is not entitled to protection under
the Civil Code, as he did not copyright his design.
● The court affirms the lower court's decision to dismiss the complaint.
● The court orders the costs to be taxed against Santos.
Key Takeaways
● Copyright protection is crucial for maintaining control over intellectual creations.
● Intellectual creations should be copyrighted within the periods provided by law.
● Failure to copyright a creation renders it public property.
● Limited publication must be clearly indicated on the face of the design.
● Once a work is published, the author loses the exclusive right to control subsequent publication by
others, unless protected by copyright law.
Ong Ching Kian Chuan vs. Court of Appeals

Case
G.R. No. 130360
Ponente
QUISUMBING, J
Decision Date
Aug 15, 2001
A dispute over a cellophane wrapper design leads to a copyright infringement case, with the
Supreme Court denying a writ of preliminary injunction and remanding the case for further
proceedings to determine the validity of the petitioner's copyright.
Facts:
● Petitioner, Wilson Ong Ching Kian Chuan, filed a complaint against respondent, Lorenzo Tan, for copyright
infringement.
● The dispute involved a cellophane wrapper with a two-dragon design.
● Petitioner claimed to be the holder of a Certificate of Copyright Registration for the design.
● Trial court granted a temporary restraining order and later issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor
of the petitioner.
● Court of Appeals set aside the trial court's order, finding that the petitioner's copyrighted wrapper was a
copy of a wrapper registered by Ceroilfood Shandong.
Issue:
● Whether the petitioner has a clear right over the use of the copyrighted wrapper.
Ruling:
● The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.
● The Court set aside the finding of the Court of Appeals regarding the design of the petitioner's wrapper.
● The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Ratio:
● Copyright protection requires the person to be the original creator of the work and must have created it
without directly copying or imitating the work of another.
● Grant of a preliminary injunction depends on the extent of doubt on the validity of the copyright, the
existence of infringement, and the damages sustained by the infringement.
● Copies of the certificates of copyright registered in the name of Ceroilfood Shandong raised reasonable
doubt on the validity of the petitioner's copyright.
● The Court deemed the finding of the Court of Appeals premature and stated that it should be decided
after appropriate proceedings at the trial court.
Case Background and Parties Involved

● The case involves a copyright infringement dispute between Wilson Ong Ching Kian Chuan (petitioner)
and Lorenzo Tan (respondent).
● The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent for infringement of copyright with damages and a
prayer for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
● The petitioner claimed to be the holder of a Certificate of Copyright Registration for a cellophane wrapper
with a two-dragon design, which the respondent allegedly used in his business.
Respondent's Opposition and Trial Court Decision
● The respondent opposed the petitioner's application for a writ of preliminary injunction, arguing that the
petitioner did not have a clear right over the use of the copyrighted wrapper.
● The respondent claimed that the trademark and label used on the wrapper were registered by Ceroilfood
Shandong, a company based in China, and that the petitioner had merely copied their design.
● The trial court granted the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the petitioner.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals

● The respondent appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, alleging that the trial court
had committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of preliminary injunction.
● The Court of Appeals set aside the trial court's order, finding that the petitioner's copyrighted wrapper
was a copy of Ceroilfood Shandong's wrapper.
Supreme Court Decision

● The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
● The Supreme Court held that in order to be entitled to a copyright, a person must be the original creator
of the work and must not have directly copied or imitated the work of another.
● The Court also stated that the grant of a preliminary injunction depends on the extent of doubt on the
validity of the copyright, the existence of infringement, and the damages sustained by such infringement.
● The Court found that the copies of the certificates of copyright registered in the name of Ceroilfood
Shandong raised reasonable doubt on the validity of the petitioner's copyright, making the preliminary
injunction unavailing.
Trial Court's Decision and Remand
● The Supreme Court set aside the finding of the Court of Appeals that the design of the petitioner's
wrapper was a copy of Ceroilfood Shandong's wrapper.
● The matter of the design similarity remained to be decided by the trial court.
● The Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial to determine the merits of the case.
Summary of Supreme Court Decision
● The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction due to doubts on the
validity of the copyright.
● The finding on the design of the wrapper was set aside for the trial court to decide.
Kho vs. Court of Appeals

Case
G.R. No. 115758
Ponente
DE LEON, JR., J
Decision Date
Mar 19, 2002
A woman files a complaint against a company for copyright and patent infringement over a beauty
cream product, but the court rules in favor of the company, stating that she did not have trademark
rights and failed to comply with procedural rules.
Facts:
● Petitioner Elidad C. Kho filed a complaint for injunction and damages against respondents Summerville
General Merchandising and Company and Ang Tiam Chay.
● Petitioner claimed copyright and patent rights on the name and container of the beauty cream product,
Chin Chun Su.
● Respondents were advertising and selling similar products under the brand name Chin Chun Sun,
allegedly misleading the public.
● Trial court granted a writ of preliminary injunction but later rendered a final decision ruling that petitioner
did not have trademark rights over the name and container of the beauty cream product.
● Court of Appeals nullified the writ of preliminary injunction and denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration.
Issue:
● Did the petitioner comply with the rule on forum shopping?
● Was there undue delay in the resolution of petitioner's motion for reconsideration?
Ruling:
● The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio:
● The petitioner did not have a clear right over the subject trade name and its container as she did not have
a registered trademark or use it before anyone else did.
● The name and container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a trademark, not of copyright
and patent registration.
● Therefore, the petitioner did not have the exclusive right to use the same.
● The petitioner should have filed a comment, not a motion to dismiss, in response to the petition for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
● The non-observance of the period for deciding cases or their incidents did not render the judgment of the
Court of Appeals ineffective or void.
Background and Parties Involved

● The petitioner in this case is Elidad C. Kho.
● The respondents are the individuals or entities who allegedly advertised and sold Kho's cream products
under a different brand name and similar containers.
● Kho filed a complaint for injunction and damages against the respondents, claiming copyright and patent
rights on the cream products.
Allegations and Rulings of the Trial Court
● Kho alleged that the respondents misled the public by advertising and selling her cream products under a
different brand name and similar containers.
● The trial court granted a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Kho.
● However, pending appeal, the trial court rendered a final decision ruling that Kho does not have
trademark rights over the name and container of the beauty cream product.
Nullification of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction
● The Court of Appeals nullified the writ of preliminary injunction and denied Kho's motion for
reconsideration.
● Kho claimed that the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the petition for certiorari for
non-compliance with the rule on forum shopping.
● She also claimed that the Court of Appeals unduly delayed the resolution of her motion for
reconsideration.
Affirmation of the Court of Appeals Decision
● The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
● The Court held that a preliminary injunction order cannot be issued because Kho has not proven that she
has a clear right over the subject trade name and its container to the exclusion of others.
● Kho failed to prove that she has a registered trademark or used it before anyone else did.
● The Court also held that the name and container of a beauty cream product are proper subjects of a
trademark, not of Kho's copyright and patent registration.
● Therefore, Kho has no right to the exclusive use of the same.
Non-observance of the Period for Deciding Cases
● The Supreme Court held that Kho should have filed a comment on, not a motion to dismiss, the petition
for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
● The non-observance of the period for deciding cases or their incidents did not render the Court of Appeals
judgment ineffective or void.
Conclusion
● The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that Kho does not have
trademark rights over the name and container of the beauty cream product.
Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. vs. Tan

Case
G.R. No. L-36402
Ponente
PARAS, J
Decision Date
Mar 16, 1987
In a copyright infringement case, the Supreme Court ruled that the playing and singing of
copyrighted songs in a restaurant did not constitute infringement as the songs had become part of
the public domain.
Facts:
● Plaintiff-appellant: Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (Filscap)
● Defendant-appellee: Benjamin Tan
● Filscap is a non-profit association that owns copyrighted musical compositions
● Tan operates a restaurant called "Alex Soda Foundation and Restaurant"
● Professional singers perform copyrighted songs in Tan's restaurant without permission from Filscap
● Filscap demanded payment for the necessary license fee, but Tan ignored the demand
● Filscap filed a complaint for copyright infringement against Tan
Issue:
● Whether the playing and singing of copyrighted songs in Tan's restaurant constitute a public performance
for profit within the meaning of the Copyright Law
● If so, whether Tan can be held liable for copyright infringement
Ruling:
● The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tan and affirmed the decision of the lower court
● The Court held that Tan did not infringe upon the Copyright Law
● While there were public performances for profit, Tan cannot be held liable for copyright infringement
Ratio:
● The Court relied on Section 3(c) of the Copyright Law, which grants the exclusive right to exhibit,
perform, represent, produce, or reproduce copyrighted works for profit or otherwise
● The playing and singing of musical compositions in Tan's restaurant constituted a public performance for
profit
● However, the composers of the contested musical compositions had waived their rights in favor of the
general public by allowing their creations to become part of the public domain before applying for
copyright protection
● The songs in question had become public property and were therefore beyond the protection of the
Copyright Law
● Tan did not infringe upon the Copyright Law and could not be held liable for copyright infringement.
Parties Involved and Background Information

● Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. (FILSCAP): a non-profit association of authors,
composers, and publishers that owned certain musical compositions, including the songs "Dahil Sa Iyo,"
"Sapagkat Ikaw Ay Akin," "Sapagkat Kami Ay Tao Lamang," and "The Nearness Of You."
● Benjamin Tan: the defendant who operated a restaurant called "Alex Soda Foundation and Restaurant"
where copyrighted songs owned by FILSCAP were played and sung without permission.
Demand for License Fee and Complaint for Copyright Infringement

● FILSCAP demanded payment of the necessary license fee from Tan for the playing and singing of
copyrighted songs in his restaurant.
● Tan ignored the demand, leading FILSCAP to file a complaint for copyright infringement against him.
Lower Court Ruling and Appeal to the Supreme Court
● The lower court ruled in favor of Tan, dismissing FILSCAP's complaint.
● FILSCAP appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court for
final determination.
Main Issues in the Case

● Whether the playing and singing of copyrighted songs in Tan's restaurant constituted a public
performance for profit under the Copyright Law.
● Whether Tan could be held liable for copyright infringement.
Argument of FILSCAP and Supreme Court's Agreement

● FILSCAP argued that playing or singing a musical composition is universally accepted as performing the
composition.
● The playing and singing of copyrighted music in Tan's restaurant for the entertainment of customers
constituted performance for profit, according to FILSCAP.
● The Supreme Court agreed with FILSCAP, stating that there were indeed "public performances for profit"
in this case.
Court's Reference to Previous Cases

● The Court cited previous cases that held that the playing of music in dine and dance establishments, paid
for by the public through purchases of food and drink, constituted performance for profit under the
Copyright Law.
● The purpose of the music was to induce the public to patronize the establishment and pay for the
entertainment.
Tan's Argument of Waiver of Rights

● Tan argued that the composers of the copyrighted songs had waived their rights in favor of the general
public by allowing their creations to become public property before applying for copyright protection.
● The Court found that the songs in question had become popular and known to the public before they
were registered for copyright protection.
● Therefore, they had long become public property and were beyond the protection of the Copyright Law.
Supreme Court's Decision

● Based on the findings, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss FILSCAP's
complaint.
Manly Sportswear Manufacturing Inc. vs. Dadodette Enterprises

Case
G.R. No. 165306
Ponente
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J
Decision Date
Sep 20, 2005
A search warrant issued against a sportswear manufacturing company is quashed after the court
determines that the copyrighted products are not original creations, allowing the company to file a
separate copyright infringement suit.
Facts:
● The case involves a search warrant issued against Manly Sportswear Manufacturing, Inc. (MANLY), a
sportswear manufacturing company.
● Special Investigator Eliezer P. Salcedo of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) applied for a search
warrant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
● The search warrant was based on the information that Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports
Center were in possession of goods that belonged to MANLY.
● Judge Estrella T. Estrada of RTC-Quezon City, Branch 83, issued Search Warrant No. 4044(03) on March 17,
2003.
● Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center moved to quash and annul the search warrant,
arguing that the copyrighted products of MANLY are not original creations and therefore not protected
under the copyright law.
Issue:
● Whether the trial court properly quashed the search warrant issued against MANLY.
Ruling:
● The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it entertained the motion to quash the search warrant.
● The trial court properly quashed the search warrant after finding that the copyrighted products of MANLY
are not original creations and are not protected under the copyright law.
● The court's ruling in the ancillary proceeding does not preempt the findings of the intellectual property
court and does not constitute res judicata.
● MANLY can still file a separate copyright infringement suit against the respondents.
Ratio:
● The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested with the trial judges, and they also have the
power to quash warrants already issued if they find upon reevaluation of the evidence that no probable
cause exists.
● The trial court properly quashed the search warrant after finding that the copyrighted products of MANLY
are not original creations.
● The trial court's ruling in the ancillary proceeding does not interfere with or encroach upon the
proceedings in the preliminary investigation.
● The order for the issuance or quashal of a warrant is not res judicata, and the outcome of the criminal
action will dictate the disposition of the seized property.
● The certificates of registration and deposit issued by the National Library and the Supreme Court Library
serve merely as a notice of recording and registration of the work and do not confer any right or title
upon the registered copyright owner.
Case Background
● The case involves Manly Sportswear Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dadodette Enterprises.
● The issue revolves around the quashing of a search warrant issued against a sportswear manufacturing
company.
● The trial court found that the copyrighted products of Manly Sportswear were not original creations and
were readily available in the market under various brands.
● As a result, the trial court quashed the search warrant, leading to the denial of the petition for review on
certiorari.
Power to Issue and Quash Search Warrants

● The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested in trial judges.
● Trial judges also have the power to quash warrants if they find that no probable cause exists.
● In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it entertained the motion to quash the search
warrant, as no criminal action had been instituted at the time.
● The trial court properly quashed the search warrant after reevaluating the evidence and finding that no
probable cause existed.
● The copyrighted products of Manly Sportswear were not original creations and did not fall under the
classes of work protected under the copyright law.
Preliminary Ruling on Copyrightability

● The trial court's ruling on the copyrightability of the seized products was only preliminary.
● It did not preempt the findings of the intellectual property court.
● The order for the issuance or quashal of a warrant is not res judicata.
● Manly Sportswear could still file a separate copyright infringement suit against the respondents.
Prima Facie Evidence of Copyright Validity

● The copyright certificates issued in favor of Manly Sportswear serve as prima facie evidence of validity
and ownership.
● However, they do not create a presumption of validity if other evidence casts doubt on the copyright
validity.
● In this case, there was sufficient proof that the copyrighted products were not original creations and were
readily available in the market under various brands.
● Therefore, the trial court was justified in quashing the search warrant for lack of probable cause.
Limited Effect of Registration and Deposit

● The certificates of registration and deposit issued by the National Library and the Supreme Court Library
are merely notices of recording and registration of the work.
● They do not confer any right or title upon the registered copyright owner.
● They are not conclusive proof of copyright ownership.
● Non-registration and deposit of the work within the prescribed period only make the copyright owner
liable to pay a fine.
Conclusion
● The petition for review on certiorari was denied.
● The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's ruling was upheld.
Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co.

Facts
Jonathan Mannion (plaintiff) was hired to photograph an athlete, Kevin Garnett, for a spread in SLAM magazine.
One of the photographs ultimately featured in the spread was distinctive in its combination of all-white athletic
clothing and distinctive jewelry, as well as its pose, camera angle, lighting, and background. Mannion had
instructed Garnett on what kind of clothing and accessories to wear and how to pose. However, Garnett selected
the specific items to wear to meet Mannion’s requests. Carol H. Williams Advertising (CHWA) (defendant) was
hired by Coors Brewing Company (Coors) (defendant) to create billboard ads for Coors Light beer. CHWA
obtained permission to use Mannion’s photograph in a comp-board image when pitching billboards to Coors.
However, when the final billboard was made, CHWA used another photographer to create an image that was
substantially the same with respect to the subject’s clothing and accessories, pose, camera angle, lighting, and
background. Mannion saw the billboard and brought suit for copyright infringement. Both parties moved for
summary judgment.
In the case of Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co., the dispute centered around whether a photograph used in billboard
advertisements for Coors Light beer infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in a photograph of a basketball star. Let’s
delve into the details:
● Facts:
○ Jonathan Mannion, a freelance photographer, specialized in portraits of celebrity athletes and
musicians in the rap and rhythm-and-blues worlds.
○ In 1999, he was hired by SLAM, a basketball magazine, to photograph basketball star Kevin
Garnett for an article titled “Above the Clouds.”
○ The cover story of the December 1999 issue featured several of Mannion’s photographs of
Garnett, including the one in question (the “Garnett Photograph”).
○ The Garnett Photograph portrayed Kevin Garnett against a backdrop of clouds, with blue sky
shining through. Garnett appeared to be towering above earth, wearing a white T-shirt, athletic
pants, and an abundance of platinum, gold, and diamond jewelry.
○ The photograph was used in billboard advertisements for Coors Light beer.
● Legal Issue:
○ The major question was whether and to what extent the elements copied from Mannion’s
photograph were protected by copyright.
○ The case required the court to consider the nature of copyright protection in photographs.
● Outcome:
○ The jury found that the plaintiff’s copyright in the photograph was valid and infringed by Coors
Brewing Company.
○ Defendant Carol H. Williams Advertising, Inc. was also liable on a vicarious infringement theory.
This case highlights the complexities of copyright protection in visual works and the importance of originality and
creativity in photography.
Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co. | 377 F. Supp. 2d 444 (2005)
What do a basketball player’s torso, heaps of jewelry, and a cloudy sky have to do with copyright law? In Mannion
versus Coors Brewing Company, those elements set the scene for a discussion of copyright protection for
photographs.
In 1999, Jonathan Mannion photographed basketball star Kevin Garnett for SLAM magazine. For the photo shoot,
Mannion asked Garnett to wear simple clothing and as much jewelry as he could. Mannion also asked Garnett to
look relaxed.
One of Mannion’s photos depicted Garnett against a cloudy blue sky. Garnett wore a white T-shirt and several
pieces of jewelry. The photo was shot up and across Garnett’s right side and lighted from the left. Garnett’s head
was tilted, and his eyes were closed.
In 2001, Carol H. Williams Advertising proposed a billboard design to Coors Brewing Company that featured an
altered version of Mannion’s photo with a superimposed Coors Light can and the words iced out, a play on
Garnett’s jewelry. Mannion gave Williams permission to use his photo for the proposal. Mannion also submitted a
bid to shoot the actual billboard photo, but his bid was rejected. Instead, Coors and Williams used a
black-and-white photo of a Black model posed similarly to Garnett, photographed against a cloudy sky and
wearing a white T-shirt and jewelry. The model’s jewelry was different from Garnett’s, and his face wasn’t visible.
The photo was shot up and across the model’s left side and lighted from the right.
After Mannion saw the billboard, he sued Coors and Williams for copyright infringement in federal district court in
New York. Both parties moved for summary judgment.
Feist Publications, Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340
In the case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., the issue revolved around copyright
protection for telephone directories. Here are the key points:
● Background: Rural Telephone Service Company, a certified public utility in Kansas, published a local
telephone directory containing white pages and yellow pages. Feist Publications, Inc., a publishing
company, specialized in area-wide telephone directories covering a larger geographic range than Rural’s
directories.
● Dispute: Feist requested a license to use Rural’s white pages listings for a directory covering 11 different
telephone service areas. When Rural refused, Feist extracted the listings it needed from Rural’s directory
without consent. Although Feist altered many of Rural’s listings, several remained identical to listings in
Rural’s white pages.
● Legal Question: The central issue was whether Rural’s white pages were eligible for copyright protection.
● Supreme Court Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Rural’s white pages did not qualify for
copyright protection. The Court emphasized that copyright protection requires originality, which includes
independent creation and a modicum of creativity. Since facts (such as names and addresses) do not
originate from an act of authorship, they are not considered original and are not copyrightable. Feist’s use
of Rural’s white pages, therefore, did not constitute infringement.
In summary, the case clarified that copyright protection hinges on originality rather than mere effort, and factual
information (such as phone listings) cannot be copyrighted.
Meshwerks, Inc. v Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008)
In the case of Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals considered
the copyright eligibility of Meshwerks’ digital wire frame models. These models were used as skeletons for the
interactive display of Toyota’s vehicle designs online and in advertising.
Here are the key details:
1. Background:
○ Toyota, in collaboration with its advertising agency Saatchi Saatchi, embarked on its model-year
2004 advertising campaign.
○ As part of this campaign, they needed digital models of Toyota vehicles for use on Toyota’s
website and other media.
○ These digital models had significant advantages over traditional product photographs, allowing
easy color changes, alterations in surroundings, and adjustments to physical dimensions.
○ To create these digital models, Toyota and Saatchi Saatchi hired Grace Wild, Inc. (G W).
2. Meshwerks’ Models:
○ Meshwerks, a company specializing in digital modeling, provided unadorned, digital wire-frame
models of Toyota’s vehicles.
○ These wire-frame models formed the base layers for computerized substitutes in advertising.
○ However, Meshwerks’ models were intentionally devoid of originality; they were based on Toyota’s
designs and did not include any unique elements of their own.
3. Legal Issue:
○ The central question was whether Meshwerks’ digital models were eligible for copyright
protection.
4. Court Decision:
○ The Tenth Circuit held that Meshwerks’ models were not protected by copyright.
○ Despite the novel context of digital media, the uncontested facts revealed that Meshwerks’
models were derivative and owed their designs to Toyota.
○ Since they lacked originality, copyright protection did not apply.
In summary, the court ruled that faithful and accurate representations of physical objects (like Meshwerks’
wire-frame models) are not original enough to warrant copyright protection.

IP Law Notes and Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IP Law Notes and Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COURSE SYLLABUS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

NEW ERA UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW

Copyright and Related Rights

D. Standard for Copyright Protection

E. When does Copyright vest?

Copyright and Related Rights

2. Presidential Decree No. 49 (took effect on 27 December 1972)

■ Lectures, sermons, and dissertations prepared for oral delivery.

3. Presidential Decree No. 1988 (amended PD 49 by inserting Section 56)

1. Purpose and Context:

4. Intellectual Property Code (took effect on 01 January 1998)

1. Background and Authorship:

○ Senator Raul S. Roco authored the Intellectual Property Code.

1. Establishment of the Bureau of Copyright and Other Related Rights:

Section 239.3, IPC

Section 236, IPC

Key points about copyright:

⮚ Section 177, IPC

⮚ Rule 2, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations

1. Author: The natural person who has created a work.

12. Performance Symbol: Represented by p.

⮚ Rules 11-12, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations

Rule 12: First Public Distribution of Work:

⮚ Section 171.3 and 171.9, IPC, as amended

⮚ Section 172.1, IPC

⮚ Section 172.2, IPC

⮚ Ching Kian Chuan v CA, 363 SCRA 142 (2001)

F. When does Copyright vest?

⮚ Santos v McCullough Printing Co., 12 SCRA 321 (1964)

⮚ Section 172 and 172.2, IPC

● Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character: Diagrams, schematics,

⮚ Rule 7, Sections 2-4, Copyright Safeguards and Regulations

⮚ Not originally sporting goods of Manly Sportwear

Santos vs. McCullough Printing Co.

Case Background and Parties Involved

Ong Ching Kian Chuan vs. Court of Appeals

Case Background and Parties Involved

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Supreme Court Decision

Kho vs. Court of Appeals

Background and Parties Involved

Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. vs. Tan

Parties Involved and Background Information

Demand for License Fee and Complaint for Copyright Infringement

Main Issues in the Case

Argument of FILSCAP and Supreme Court's Agreement

Court's Reference to Previous Cases

Tan's Argument of Waiver of Rights

Supreme Court's Decision

Manly Sportswear Manufacturing Inc. vs. Dadodette Enterprises

Power to Issue and Quash Search Warrants

Preliminary Ruling on Copyrightability

Prima Facie Evidence of Copyright Validity

Limited Effect of Registration and Deposit

Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co.

Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co. | 377 F. Supp. 2d 444 (2005)

Here are the key details:

You might also like